By Any Other Name? The Manipulative Metaphysics of Redefinition

“Redefining” is a very modern term. One can read hundreds of articles about how things are being redefined, marriage being the hottest button issue of them all. But what does redefining something mean? What does it imply?

In the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet, Juliet utters that famous remark, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Yes, if we were to call a rose by another name, it would still be what it is. But what if we were also to group, under the name “rose,” other things?

What if what we now call “ragweed” were also to be called “rose”? Then we would have essentially redefined “rose,” not merely renamed it. Its definition would have to be rewritten; its essential traits would be reclassified.

Yes, if Romeo’s surname were Capulet, Juliet would still love him. But what if the name “Romeo” designated both what it formerly did and also Juliet’s nurse? That’s another matter.

Renaming vs. Redefining

Redefinition is a dangerous game. A rose by another name may smell as sweet. But sweetness is not automatically a trait of anything we redefine to be a “rose.”

There is a very important difference between renaming something and redefining it. In the first case, one merely changes a label. A few years back, the “Brooklyn-Queens Expressway” became the “Jackie Robinson Expressway” by mayoral decree and for the cost of signage. That’s it (though I think such a great player deserves to be honored with a much safer road and fewer potholes).

But redefining is something else. As the word’s etymology (finis = border) suggests, the borders are redrawn. The confines are widened or narrowed. It implies that what a word denotes either expands or contracts. Like a modern insurance policy, what the word’s premium covers is in flux and can be renegotiated at whim.

Speaking of insurance, a recent article claims that “Health and Human Services Secretary [Kathleen Sebelius] doesn’t understand what insurance is.” But the article’s real beef is not a lack of understanding of insurance, but its redefinition. “Catastrophic coverage is ‘true insurance.’ Coverage of routine, predictable services is not insurance at all; it’s a spectacularly inefficient prepayment plan.”

The author’s real contention is not that Sebelius grasps at straws when confronted with the concept of insurance, but that she uses the word in a much wider understanding than the author believes is accurate.

But this shows the immense power that redefining a term has. There is a sort of eminent domain that can occur when we allow a word to expand its territory beyond what it has covered in the past.

Redefinition Implies Dominion and Ownership

It can be downright confusing — like if we were to group any milk-plus-flavoring beverage under the term “chocolate milk” — but it can also be downright manipulative. By exerting the power of redefinition, we assert our power to control something. It implies a type of dominion and ownership.

In the Book of Genesis, Adam named the animals. This has traditionally been seen as a way of showing his dominion over them. In the film Major League II, when Charlie Sheen’s “Wild Thing” character is about to throw his best pitch, he says, “Here comes the ‘Terminator.’ If you get a piece of it, you can rename it.”

A real question, when faced with redefinition, is whether we truly have the power to redefine. Nabisco owns Oreos. The powers that be at Nabisco can decide whether the name covers Double Stuf Oreos, traditional Oreos or whatever else they choose. Their main concern would only be public perception and not to confuse their brand through marketing. It could hurt sales for them to suddenly name all of their cookies “Oreos.”

But when Iraq, back in the ’90s, redefined its borders as including what most other people called the sovereign state of Kuwait, there was a war questioning whether that was a valid claim.

Redefinition and Metaphysics

And yet, in today’s hot-button issues like abortion (does the term “a human life” include a fetus?) and marriage (should the word be expanded to include same-sex couples?) what is at stake goes even further beyond the power to redefine. What is ultimately at issue is if there is any underlying reality at all.

In order for you to understand this article, the words need to mean the same thing for you who read and for me who writes. Speaking the same language means that people who share “our language” should be able to understand our words. The words, therefore, are universal for anyone of our language.

But why does “dog” mean the same for you and for me? Is it just because we have been handed down a word or because we both have the experience of the same reality, in which we both call a furry pet that isn’t a cat a “dog”? Philosophers have spoken a lot about this issue, and (leaving Plato and his followers to one side for a bit) there are basically two big camps. They differ in their metaphysics (their philosophy of what is real).

“Realists” would say that there is something universal about the reality of a dog: that you and I and someone 200 years ago have the same mental experience when we understand that a dog is in front of us, whether we call it a “dog” or a “perro” or a “hund.” The universality, so to speak, is in the thing.

“Nominalists” would say that what is universal is the name, not the thing. We just agree to call it a “dog,” but nothing beyond the name is guaranteed common to our experience. For all I know, you may see what I call a “rabbit,” but we both call it “dog,” and somehow life works.

What I am getting at, in an admittedly roundabout fashion, is that redefinition implies a nominalist way of seeing the world. We give ourselves the power to redefine things when we basically say that there is no underlying reality that forces its own borders on us. We have the power to move the stakes wherever we want. Reality is whatever we say it is. We can manipulate it at will.

I can call “chocolate milk” whatever I like. If you call it “café latte,” so be it. I can call it whatever I like.

If you’re a nominalist, you just have to be good at marketing, and your battle is making everyone use the term you use.

Redefinition and Respect

Personally, I am a realist, and I think the nominalist solution causes more problems than it solves. Okay, I’m being too nice. I think its nuts. I think there is such a thing as a dog, and I think that there is a reality that my thoughts and words reflect, not merely one they create. And I, for one, think that reality should be respected.

So when we deal with life or marriage or insurance, we should think deeply about things and not merely manipulate and play name games.

What is a rose, anyway? What makes it what it is? It’s a red flower — so could I redefine it so that “rose” includes red carnations and Mokara orchids? Or must I look deeper into reality and figure out the truth of what I am defining?

What is being lost in a lot of these debates today is respect for reality. We assert our power and dominion and run roughshod over reality.

Redefinition is dangerous. We had better be very, very sure before we redraw the borders on a minefield.

Any redefinition should, ideally, reflect a better understanding of reality — and not a manipulative desire to change reality or, worse, to pretend it isn’t there.

Comments

Looking for a great place to find books, classes, and meditation guides? Flora Peterson’s metaphysics site provides everything you would ever need and more! http://www.mflorapeterson-innercircle.com/shop/?ap_id=girl08er

Posted by Jay Hochstedt on Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 1:07 AM (EDT):

Josef Pieper’s brief book “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” from Ignatius is absolutely essential on this question, as the PR re-branding “Marriage Equality” has succeeded in shifting a small but significant portion of people to embrace the travesty of marriage.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Sunday, Apr 14, 2013 2:44 PM (EDT):

I have used similar arguments myself - i.e. that those who promote same-sex “marriage” are essentially asking the rest of us to accept their calling a black car “red.”

Posted by Craig Roberts on Thursday, Apr 11, 2013 1:43 PM (EDT):

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” (1Cor 4:20)

The word war was lost a long time ago. Ever since Eve decided that it was ok to talk to snakes words have led to our downfall. You can’t argue with the devil. What’s going to happen is the same sad old story. The faithful remnant will suffer at the hands of the wicked while the rest of the world wallows in indifference. So what are Christians to do? “...rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.” (1Pet 4:13)

Posted by Barbara C. on Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 2:40 PM (EDT):

I was having a similar discussion with someone who was applauding the idea that “marriage equality” would allow any two people, even if they are just good friends, to “get married” in order to get better tax benefits, inheritance rights, and custody agreements. I asked him at what point do we stretch the term marriage from the commonly understood meaning to something that has absolutely no meaning at all.
*
I noticed also that a lot of people in this topic don’t know the difference between a “right” and a government “incentive”. A lot of pro-gay marriage advocates don’t stop to thing WHY the government recognizes or gives incentives for marriage; they honestly think it is a plot just to discriminate against gay people.
*
They don’t think that society has a vested interest in promoting couples to make a public commitment to provide a stable relationship for the rearing of children rather than people shacking up and single-parenthood. They don’t think about how the incentives were put in place to protect women, especially those having children.
*
And if the incentives don’t really mean anything in this age of shacking up, divorce, intentional single-parenthood, and intentionally sterile marriage (including gay marriage) then the government would be smarter just to take away the incentives and tax everyone to death.

Posted by mater_et_magistra on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 3:34 PM (EDT):

@dch: “And you wonder why gay people are fighting back against you, they have been subjected to 31 state ballot initiatives to restrict their equal treatment under the law.” [re: “Unequals should be treated unequally. Same sex groupings can never be a marriage. Comparing such things to marriage is absurd.”]

The problem with your argument is that you are equivocating – using the word “unequals” in two different senses – and making NO sense.
At first you claim gay PEOPLE are not treated equally. However, in all actuality, men and women, whether they be gay or not, are treated EQUALLY under the law already. Every man is treated equally to other men. Every woman is treated equally to other women. Everyone is equally free to marry. However, there is a requirement – a requirement based on WHAT marriage itself is. Everyone, EQUALLY, must marry an individual of the OPPOSITE gender. This is completely EQUAL TREATMENT under the law.

Now to: “Unequals should be treated unequally.” What are the “unequals”? This does NOT refer to individuals having different “attractions.” This refers to the type of COUPLE – one couple being composed of two people of OPPOSITE gender, the other composed of two people of the SAME gender. These couples are DIFFERENT. The couple composed of two of complementary gender can do something the other couple cannot – a man and a woman together are capable of having a comprehensive, one-flesh, CONJUGAL union - a union of both mind and body - that has a very PUBLIC dimension because a totally new, other human can be conceived in this union. Because of this OBJECTIVE difference, it is completely logical to identify these two couples as UNEQUAL. Likewise, it is completely reasonable and JUST to treat different (unequal) things differently.

Posted by mater_et_magistra on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 12:52 PM (EDT):

@dch: “And you wonder why gay people are fighting back against you, they have been subjected to 31 state ballot initiatives to restrict their equal treatment under the law.” [re: “Unequals should be treated unequally. Same sex groupings can never be a marriage. Comparing such things to marriage is absurd.”]

The problem with your argument is that you are equivocating – using the word “unequals” in two different senses – and making NO sense.

At first you claim gay PEOPLE are not treated equally. However, in all actuality, men and women, whether they be gay or not, are treated EQUALLY under the law already. Every man is treated equally to other men. Every woman is treated equally to other women. Everyone is equally free to marry. However, there is a requirement – a requirement based on WHAT marriage itself is. Everyone, EQUALLY, must marry an individual of the OPPOSITE gender. This is completely EQUAL TREATMENT under the law.

Now to: “Unequals should be treated unequally.” What are the “unequals”? This does NOT refer to individuals having different “attractions.” This refers to the type of COUPLE – one couple being composed of two people of OPPOSITE gender, the other composed of two people of the SAME gender. These couples are DIFFERENT. The couple composed of two of complementary gender can do something the other couple cannot – a man and a woman together are capable of having a comprehensive, one-flesh, CONJUGAL union - a union of both mind and body - that has a very PUBLIC dimension because a totally new, other human can be conceived in this union. Because of this OBJECTIVE difference, it is completely logical to identify these two couples as UNEQUAL. Likewise, it is completely reasonable and JUST to treat different (unequal) things differently.

RMW, you have isolated the precise issue. The problem is that the same word—marriage—is used for the legal institution as for the sacrament. Catholics are saying “Wait, you can’t redefine my sacrament,” when a secular society is attempting to change the requirements to enter into a legal contract.

To re-visit the author’s example, for a long time the word “marriage” was used interchangeably to mean both the rose of sacramental marriage and the ragweed of civil union. This sort of worked, as long as the culture remained somewhat in line with traditional Christian beliefs, but it was doomed to fail as religious bodies lost influence over the population. I’d say that the attempt to conflate the sacrament and the civil union completely failed when no-fault divorce laws made divorce and re-marriage common. You now had millions of people in “marriages” that weren’t really “marriages” in the eyes of the church.

No one had decided to redefine the word “marriage.” The reality of the civil union changed, exposing the limits of church and state control in defining a relationship. Same sex marriage is just another, and actually less drastic change in the legal contract. It will affect a far smaller percentage of couples than the changes in divorce laws.

Posted by dch on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 10:14 AM (EDT):

“Unequals should be treated unequally. Same sex groupings can never be a marriage. Comparing such things to marriage is absurd.”

And you wonder why gay people are fighting back against you, they have been subjected to 31 state ballot initiatives to restrict their equal treatment under the law. Now the tide has turned and the you are now losing - you attitude is now in the minority - and the GOP’s wedge issue is cleaving off young voters they need to replace the old demographic group that are fading away.

Posted by Tommy on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 9:46 AM (EDT):

Wow, I had never considered our current situation in terms of “realism” and “nominalism.” That is very helpful.

I was taught once that Rene Descartes is the Father of Modern Philosophy, but that William of Ockham - fellow nominalist - is the Grandaddy. Isn’t it amazing what happens when you deny nature.

Posted by Matt on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 6:44 AM (EDT):

@Rex
Rex, you’ve got some lousy arguments and they’re all over the place.
1. As you said, the state’s role is to regulate society. The reason the state even began recognizing marriage (something pre-existing the state) is because it is the foundational unit that builds society (through procreation) and pays the bills (taxes from the offspring).
2. The Church’s moral teaching is what it is. Any person can choose to obey or disobey what she has made known. Yes, she has given us beautiful guidelines on how to have a fruitful, Christian marriage. Our free will is whether we decide to follow that.
3. I’m not sure if your Wikipedia excerpt is supposed to be an argument or not. But if so, it’s circular. The article above simply says, “they’re trying to redefine marriage.” Your Wikipedia cement doesn’t justify this redefinition as much as simply say, “yep. That’s what’s they’re doing.”
4. As far as the Church having to “respect” the law, we’ll see. If ny that you mean that civilly homosexuals may one day be given “marriage” licenses and there’s nothing we can do about it, then ok (though we can ceaselessly fight for a reversal as we have with abortion). If by “respect” you mean the Church will have to participate in some way, that’s not going to happen. Ever. Perhaps it means martyrdom as you’ve suggested but we will never be coerced into evil.

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 6:34 PM (EDT):

Rex,

Unequals should be treated unequally. Same sex groupings can never be a marriage. Comparing such things to marriage is absurd.

Posted by Rex King on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 4:42 PM (EDT):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_versus_license
.With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions.The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
.
In secular law, there will be same sex civil unions—whether it’s called “marriage” is up to different religious groups. Catholics don’t have to acknowledge such unions as “Catholic marriages,” but they will have to respect the law or martyr themselves by resigning from public services.

Posted by Rex King on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 4:30 PM (EDT):

Anon—You need to get a licence to marry in any case. What if heterosexual “marriage” was outlawed and you had to pay additional taxes?
.
License is also a secular term. You get your license to drive revoked if you kill too many people (yeah, right). The same should be with guns and assault weapons, but we know how that goes too.
.
Why should there be no license for homosexual marriage?

Posted by anon on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 2:33 PM (EDT):

Rex,

Freedom is not license. That is why.

Posted by Rex King on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 2:25 PM (EDT):

The Friendly Atheist has a post about opinions on gay marriage. It’s mostly religion based. The Catholic religion’s mission is to “save souls.” The U.S. government’s purpose is to regulate secular society—it doesn’t worry about souls.
.
How can you say humans have free-will when the Church is putting so many restrictions on our sexuality?

Posted by Jorge on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 2:20 PM (EDT):

Interesting article.

Posted by anon on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 2:02 PM (EDT):

Great piece. The problem is most of society would not grasp your point or even care about it. That is the problem.

Posted by Bob Drury on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 1:28 PM (EDT):

Excuse me, but by “leaving Plato and his followers to one side”, you redefined realist.
I believe the best way to beat those who would redefine marriage is to join them. Traditional marriage includes two restrictions: heterosexuality and couples. In the American experience it was the restriction to couples that was first challenged. The Mormons where chased across the country because they wished to redefine marriage. If we joined those who now wish to redefine marriage by eliminating the restriction to heterosexuality, we could also insist on eliminating the restriction of marriage to couples. What valid rationale could one propose to maintain the restriction to couples once the restriction to heterosexuality is eliminated? How could anyone then argue that ‘love’ is ‘naturally’ restrictive to couples?
When both restrictions are eliminated, who cares if the resultant civil definition is that for ‘marriage’? Such civil ‘marriage’ would crumble in human practice and in civil law under its own insignificance. Let’s urge the redefinition of civil ‘marriage’ by dumping its two main restrictions. We can use another word for the sacrament.

Posted by RMW on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 12:34 PM (EDT):

Sadly, for some, the redefinition of marriage is long overdue. As you point out, these nominalists will want us to believe they are merely stretching a once very specific word over very broad situations. For them, marriage needs to be a commonly used as band-aids and kleenex.

However, I am sure the companies that own the trademarks to those very specific products cringe every item we say it when holding a dollar store knock-off in our hand. It is an interesting irony that right now the much lauded Tiffany & Co. is fighting a battle to protect their name from being used by Costco! Yes, as if you could find a Tiffany quality diamond there!

Words do matter - and while I’m really okay calling all ‘adhesive strips’ band-aids in my house, I do not want my sacrament equated to someone’s sin.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Guest Blogger/Edward Mulholland

Edward Mulholland Ph.D. is assistant professor of classical and modern languages at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University, and an master’s degree in classics from the University of London. He has been involved in Catholic education via seminary, college and high school teaching for 25 years. He has taught in Italy, Spain, Mexico and the United States. He and his wife Valerie have six children.